ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Neuromorphic Engineering Needs Closed-Loop Benchmarks.
Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The neurobench framework for benchmarking neuromorphic computing algorithms and systems.Nature communications · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neuromorphic engineering aims to build (autonomous) systems by mimicking biological systems. It is motivated by the observation that biological organisms-from algae to primates-excel in sensing their environment, reacting promptly to their perils and opportunities. Furthermore, they do so more resiliently than our most advanced machines, at a fraction of the power consumption. It follows that the performance of neuromorphic systems should be evaluated in terms of real-time operation, power consumption, and resiliency to real-world perturbations and noise using task-relevant evaluation metrics. Yet, following in the footsteps of conventional machine learning, most neuromorphic benchmarks rely on recorded datasets that foster sensing accuracy as the primary measure for performance. Sensing accuracy is but an arbitrary proxy for the actual system's goal-taking a good decision in a timely manner. Moreover, static datasets hinder our ability to study and compare closed-loop sensing and control strategies that are central to survival for biological organisms. This article makes the case for a renewed focus on closed-loop benchmarks involving real-world tasks. Such benchmarks will be crucial in developing and progressing neuromorphic Intelligence. The shift towards dynamic real-world benchmarking tasks should usher in richer, more resilient, and robust artificially intelligent systems in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.